Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-02-11

guagr should not he taken rs denial ot
what evOrv person familiar with our
rep 'rls knows namely, that no judge
ever IT, iibcratsly undertook admlui,t, /
statute without admitting thos, cXccp
tlpli> 10 il Mh,ch are Recognized in ln.
Other parts OF the legal ;. stem. Nor did
any legislative body ever proceed on lii,
idea, that its enactmen> nre tn bc pat in
lorce 10y courts 80 ignorant ul legal aiiall
a. To deem them meant for Independent
rules I" be limited by ns Others. and tc
override all laws antaconisiic 10 their
general words. For legislatures and courts
alike recognize the fact, which common
sense teaches to every thoughtful person
thai II is neither possible nor desirable III
any system OF laws. To attach To each par
ticular law every qualification embraced
III every other. So \oluminOiis would the
Laws thus becolnc, and so"ltcn would con
tlci> he found in them. in spite of every
Legislative caution, and So difficult would
II bt 10 explore their immense MASSES thai
their usefulness would be ind.tinitcl,
diminished" bishop on Statutory Crime,
Sections III and liza. In view of thi,
forclhlc and conclusive exposition Of til,
relations Ia each other ot laws, old am
ti"n> surrounding the subject al the tim,
Section 2O1S was enacted, 10 Gain the ~
sent of the mind To the proposition thai
The implication must have attached 10 thai
law that jurors, both grand and petit
should he qualified electors, ~hpair mates
Ought this limitation To be DESTROYED
by implication derived from a lrgiSaIiv,
act which contcsscdly deals with anothcl
n. I Ia, ,,l ,I..
marked, and the labor apd responsibility
which it imposes so onorous and harden
some, and SO utterly unsuitcd To the phys
ical constitution Of females, that We ought
not to depart from the old order wiihou,
the most indubiable evidence that
the legislature so intended We are no,
without high authority on this precise
question. The supreme court of Massa
chuscttS, in case where The statute under
which Il female claimed the right to as
sumo the office of an attorney at law was
broad enough to sustain her claim, denied
her the right on the precise ground here
put. (RObnson's case, I3l, Mass. 311D In
discussing that case the ceurt says: 1.-The
intention of the legislature in enacting Il
particular statute is not &c he asccrtaincd
by interpreting the statute itself alone
and according to The mere literal meaning
of its words. Every statute must he con.
srurd in connection with the whole svS
tenn Of which il forms Il part, and in the
light of the common Inv and of Tie pre-.
vious statutes upon the same subject; and
the legislature is not Ia be lightly pre-
snmcd to have intended to reverse the pol.
icy of its predecessors. or to introduce a
fundamental change in lnnI established
principles of law
In case arising III Illinois, the su.
prcme court of that state made "A similar
decision upon similar reasoning, and the
action of that conrt was affirmed. on an
peal, by the supreme court of thc United
Stated. (Brotwell vs.. Illinois. ii Wal
lace, l30) The language of judge Brad
ley in the latter case is worth quoting a'
length: The claim that under the l4tl
amenGm' nj of the cOn>tiluti NJ which de
ciarrS inli no state shall make or emf. re,
any law which shall abridgc the privileges
and immunitics of citlZ"ns of the United
States The statute law of IllinoiS. OF
the common law prevailing in thai
state can na longer be set up y,
Il barrier against the right OF female,
to pursue any lawful employment Tor /;
livelihood, the practice OF law included,
assumes that ii is one OF the privilege.
and immunitieS of women as citizens /.
engage in any and every profession, occu
patton or employment in civil life /
certainly cannot be affirmed as an hisior-
ical tact.tha this has ever bren Established
us one OF the fundamental privileges an,
immuniles of the sex. On the contrary
the civil law, rs well Us nature herself, ha.
always recognized wide difference in III,
respective spheres and dc>tnics of man
and woman. Man is,"r $ ould be, woman,
protector and defender. The natural an
proper timidiiy and dclicacv which he
longs to HE female SEX, evidently unfit.
ii iar many of the occupations of civi
life. The constitution of Ia" family organ
iZation. which j. found IN the divine ordi
nance. rs well as in the nature of thRgS
indicates the dom, Site sphere as iha
| which properly b'lons to the domain
and functions of woomanhuol The har
mony, not to say identity, Of ialcr, st an,
views wl!ith belong, or should belong I,
the family institutions is repugnnHt I,
the idea Of woman adopting Il di>tinc
| and independent career from that OF hcI
husband"
Thus we see that the l4th amendment
WEIGH certainly spreads its procctin.
shield over females. because females ar,
citizens, is yet not strong enough To over
| come The implied Limitations of prior Law
| and custom with which il was brough
into association when it was adopted.
In another case, well known to the pro
fcs>ion, the Supreme Court of the Unite,
States without any express law or rule %
court to prevent, refused To admit female
to practice rs an attorney ut Its bar. =,
also. upon Il similar application, did tn
supreme court OF Wisconsin. | regret thai
am unable to refer to the volume con
| tanning this admirable opinion of Chic
| Justice Ryan.
One other reference will suffice on thi
| branch of the case. The chief Justice o
| this court, in a case in his district in whicl
it was attempted to take advantage of .
legislative blunder, Whereby in attempt
| ing To add Il clause to Il statute; all except
tie added clause WAS repealed, said
There can be no reasonable question
| then. it seems to me, rs TO the intent of TIN
| legislature. Anybody of any sense, wh'
is not 4 lawyer or II judge, can tell at
| glance what that intent is. When MAJ
becomes lawyer he does not have to los
his wits, nor does "A judge have to be
| fool. | desire never 10 be one of thos
judges who. when they discover in tn,
Legislative proceedings Il clerical mistake
inadvertance or blunder, will push it Il
extremity, and give to an unhappy etlor
of expression sense and power palpabl
never intended, and permit the awkward
ness of a phrase to work ruin and dcsola
ton TO the poor" C. J. Green, in jackson
cs Winn, Port Townsend term). This
most excellent language and the principle
which il announces are extremely pert
nent to the question presented i'll this cas'
They are decisive OF it.
l pass now to the question not CONSIDER
ed in Rosencrantz rs. the Territory Tha
question concerns the validity OF the ac
of the Legislature comforting on t'maie
he elective franchise. OF coursc, if tha
act is invalid the whole supcistruciurc {
the argument by which female jury dut
is demonstrated, fall, to the gronnd br.
ken and shapcicss mass. 1h. Lj,Cti0natl
feature Of that law is its title, which read,
An act Ia amend section 5000, chaptt
23e of the Code of Washington Territory.
The organic act of this territory drclar,
as one of the limitations on legi ,laiiv
action the 10 loWin. To avoid imprOi
er influences which may result from intcl
miMng Ia the same act such thing ii